…unless you are Bernie Sanders, which makes him even more amazing than he already was… Out-raising Clinton? Impressive. Not to mention blowing the doors off all feeble Republican efforts.

But I’m riffing on this topic today, so here it goes.

The reason is because a lot of progressive type people as well as far righters rail at their politicians for being what has often been titled “corporate whores”…

Doing whatever corporate donors ask and then getting a few bucks for it…

What most of you don’t realize, is that elected officials really don’t have a choice. Citizens United changed the playing field so that ignoring BIG money kills you off early.

(Which is why we elect progressive type people and become dismayed to find they too gyrate to corporate philosophies faster than we can find their replacements..)

For new comers to this process, we should say, it was not always this way… There was a time when BIG MONEY was just a player like everyone else. If they had good ideas, you listened. If they were a crock, you ignored their pleas…

Citizen’s United changed that playing field by allowing dark money to invade any contest. Prior, one had limits on contributions each which alone would not sway an entire election, plus it had to be publicly disclosed…

Now if someone doesn’t like the “size of your nose”, they can secretly donate unlimited amounts to unseat you… In local races it may not be effective. Bryan Townsend (2012) trounced “Big Bucks” Tony Deluca who had paid a lot for slick pieces to land in every district mailbox every day a month before the election… It sorta pissed people off.

But the threat of big money arising against you, makes you seriously weigh what normally would have been good sense legislation against that potential threat…

For example: do I dare stop this cancer causing power plant in the heart of Newark which will prematurely kill of 15,000 of our citizens over the next 50 years,…. or risk losing the next election due to dark money behind a dark opponent?

That would be a no-brainer right? Those dead could be your children, right? But no, it is not a no-brainer because you won’t be around in 50 years. And if you vote against it, you definitely will have an all out fight to still be employed beginning the next election cycle..

So more than donated money itself, it is the threat of potential money that has killed off all “pro-people” legislation.

Just like: the threat of getting stopped at a sobriety checkpoint…. chance of a 100 per million… makes you not drink too much before driving. Or getting a ticket from the camera pole, makes you not run a red light and instead sit at the corner for 3 minutes with no cars in sight; or eventually losing your license, makes you choose to pay at tolls instead of sneaking through the EZ Pass lane.

All those ridiculous things we do that defy common sense, we do because of existential threats. With Citizen’s United, the threat is real that if we do not side with corporate against WE, THE PEOPLE, we will lose everything we’ve worked for our entire professional lives….

This is why calling anyone, including Hillary, a corporate whore, is pretty lame… They have no choice really… Sadly it is like name calling a 13 year old who was forced to prostitute.. They could be a concert pianist had events gone differently for them… But we, have forced them into this situation… and as would any 13 year old rapidly figure out, you get killed if you don’t play the game, so you had better play it well because no one is coming to save you….

Unless it is YOU… Are YOU going to vote to end Citizen’s United?….. If not, shut your mouth… You are polluting the air with your breath…

We are getting our money’s worth with this bunch, that’s for sure… I wonder when they’ll let civilians drive it? I think the monster mile would be a good test track for civilians to get the opportunity….

Can you imagine seeing this thing pass you on the Delaware Memorial Bridge and at the apex it goes sailing off into the sky? What will they think of spending our money on next…

Last week Allan Loudell was waxing poetic on an live interview how the Supreme Court was Conservative on the voting rights act and liberal on the repeal of DOMA, finishing with: ” is it anyones guess what to expect?” I was busy at the time, but thought it was rather easy to figure out. You see, i know a Libertarian and so making the assessment that Justice Kennedy was also a Libertarian, didn’t require much of a leap at all.

When one thinks of Libertarians, one thinks of that tiny party in the middle of a ballot. But Libertarianism has played a dominant role in the US’s formation… It is just that when it strikes, it is not on the ballot. Below I show how Libertarianism easily explains how this court acts….

This past season the Supreme Court heard 75 cases… Of those seventy five, 30% were decided by a vote of 5-4. This is one of the most contentious courts on record. The roundabout average is 22% of its cases decided by 5-4 decisions. However, and this is surprising, almost 50% of its decisions were decided by a 9-0 margin. That is unprecedented as well.

There appears to be a solid libertarian bias that leans through this court. If progressive, they are libertarian progressives, if conservative they are libertarian conservatives, and if split, then the most libertarian of them all, Justice Kennedy, is the decider.

Let me first touch on those decision made last week. a) Voting Rights Act… If there is no firm reason not to leave it to the states, then leave it to the states… Libertarianism. b) Repeal of Clause 3 of DOMA… If the government is picking favorites of one custom over another, that is not the government’s business… Government needs to butt out… Pure Libertarianism. Those inured in thinking only in terms of “left” and “right” are by their blinders.. baffled. However there is a very clear aim through out this court and that aim clearly states that the government should not be interfering with people’s rights to decide things for themselves.

Furthermore, although this court is very pro business, to call it an business court would still be an error. The human gene concept, that actual genes were not to be patented, was decided in part because doing so would benefit the company that acquired the patent, but hurt those who didn’t. There was no prevailing clause of ownership offered by the plaintiff, since the gene existed long before the company did, so therefore, everyone has a right to it. The decision was business neutral. Though one company lost, all others gained thereby making the decision a neutral one. Very Libertarian. Favorites should not be picked by the government. However if Monsanto in another landmark case, actually did invent the gene, then for a farmer to replant some of the soybeans as farmers have since civilization began, should not happen. Those beans were not his intellectual property, because they were created legally under license by Monsanto. No different than buying a CD and burning copies for one’s friends and acquaintances. Again, very Libertarian. The government should not interfere with either picking or hurting a company in its effort to make money by playing with existing rules.

Likewise the Federal Government should not limit or impose itself or it’s temporary values upon a company doing business overseas. Therefore for the Federal Government forbidding an AIDs vaccine to be used in Africa for infectees caused by prostitution, was illegal. That puritan law was stricken. Government can’t interfere.

And so after this season, federal judicial participation in guilty pleas is now subject to harmless error review; the government can’t involuntary dissolve a parent/childs bonding rights; a person who does not choose to willfully invoke their 5th amendment rights, can have their subsequent silence used against them. A sex offender in the armed services must like every other citizen who is one, register in the state where he resides. Likewise an insurance beneficiary of a previous divorce, can get paid according to original contract, and no state law can override that.

Just “thinking like a Libertarian” has for the most part made one able to predict the outcome of this court with amazing accuracy. It is really contrary to Allan Loudell’s statement, not a mystery after all….. One just has to think outside the Red and Blue Box…

The educational department of the University of Delaware is ranked 31st in the nation... That is at least out of 5000 accredited teaching schools…

Not only that, they are 31st in the top ranked educational teacher training country in the entire world… Apparently there is no educational crises in America when it comes to teachers receiving top notch training.

What just passed last Thursday in Delaware, now requires the University of Delaware, again now ranked 31st in the top educator nation in the world, 🙂 to be judged solely on how its teachers administer Common Core when they go out into the field…

One would think someone in Legislative Hall would have at least looked into Common Core before mandating that the 31st best teaching institution in the best ranked nation for turning out good teachers, would have to be judged on its effectiveness by the results of a program everyone is having so much trouble with.

Progressives are against it. Tea Party Advocates are against it. Democrats are against it. Republicans are against it.. Red States are against it. Blue States are against it. How could this be? Could it be possible they all have children?

In fact, it appears there is no one who is in favor of common core, across this entire great nation we are so fortunate to live in… No one except 59 Delaware legislators, who apparently didn’t get the memo…..

My friends, we are gathered here today to celebrate one of life’s greatest moments, to give recognition to the worth and beauty of committed marital love, and to add our best wishes to the words which shall unite these two people in marriage. In the words of our Creator, what God hath brought together, let no one cut asunder.

The commitment that the two of you are about to make, is the most important commitment that two people can make; you are about to create something new, the marriage relationship, an entity that never ends.

As you stand here today, are you now prepared to begin this commitment to one another? (I am)

Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage? (I have)

I would ask that you both remember to treat yourself and each other with dignity and respect; to remind yourself often of what brought you together today. Give the highest priority to the tenderness, gentleness and kindness that your marriage deserves. When frustration and difficulty assail your marriage – as these do to every relationship at one time or another – focus on what still seems right between you, not only the part that seems wrong. This way, when clouds of trouble hide the sun in your lives and you lose sight of it for a moment, you can remember that the sun is still there. And if each of you will take responsibility for the quality of your life together, it will be marked by abundance and delight.

Will you have this person to be your wedded partner? (I will)

Will you love and comfort then, honor and keep them, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto them as long as you both shall live? (I will)

Will you have this person to be your wedded partner? (I will)

Will you love and comfort them, honor and keep them, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, keep yourself only unto them as long as you both shall live? (I will)

Since it is your intention to enter into marriage, join your right-hands, and declare your consent (before these witnesses) by repeating after me:

I, take you to be my partner, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, as long as we both shall live. Take this ring as a sign of my commitment and fidelity to you. …

I, take you to be my partner, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, as long as we both shall live. Take this ring as a sign of my commitment and fidelity to you.

In so much as the two of you have agreed to live together in Matrimony, have promised your commitment to each other by these vows, (and) the joining of your hands (and the giving of these rings), by the authority vested in me by the State of Delaware, I now pronounce you a married couple. Congratulations, you may now kiss as a married couple….

Ladies and Gentlemen here who are witnesses. May I present to you the world’s newest couple….

Not only was I shocked that Sublime was something of which Delaware Liberal was unaware, but I gathered they were also unaware of the problems Common Core and Obama were placing upon local educators… So I was going to sit down and write the entire history of 21st Century American Education….

But I found this, and it is a very nice beginning of the weekend, so I am instead going to default to a better writer Valerie Strauss oif the Washington Post, who does a real nice wrap up that if my progressive friends will read, will make them understand what the problem is with Obama’s, Arne Duncun’s, Jack Markell’s, and Mark Murphy’s approach to education….